A follow-up to the book "Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism and Science Exposed!" by Robert Todd Carroll, creator of The Skeptic's Dictionary. The blog will offer irregular postings about cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and illusions.

Site Map

Sunday, February 19, 2012

backfire effect

The backfire effect is a curious response many people have to
evidence that conflicts with their beliefs: instead of becoming open to
the possibility that the evidence might be correct and one might have to
change one's mind, many people become more convinced that they were
right in the first place. Yes, that's right. Some people's beliefs get stronger when evidence against their
belief is presented to them. You would think that a rational person
would base his beliefs on the strength of the evidence and that evidence
against his belief should weaken rather than strengthen his belief, but
there is a growing body of scientific evidence that has found most of
us are not that rational when it comes to dealing with evidence that
conflicts with beliefs we already hold.

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler
coined the term “backfire effect” to describe this irrational response
of coming to hold one's original position even more strongly when
confronted with evidence that conflicts with one's belief. For
journalists and anyone engaging in debate and argument who hopes to
persuade others and change their minds or correct misinformation, the
backfire effect is more than annoying; it indicates our goals are
pointless and we are guaranteed to fail. Why bother to provide evidence
for global warming or point out the errors of the climate change deniers
if the better our arguments are the more the deniers will dig in and be
encouraged in their continued errors? Why bother explaining evolution
to young Earth creationists and rebutting their inane arguments when the
likely effect is to strengthen their erroneous beliefs? Why waste time
explaining to anti-vaccinationists the benefits of vaccinations and the
harm done by not vaccinating children when all we are likely to
accomplish is to fuel their hostility toward the truth? It becomes a
futile exercise to argue with people who believe Obama is a Muslim or
wasn't born in Hawaii. Not only will no amount of evidence change their
minds, but the more evidence we provide to show they're wrong, the
stronger their conviction becomes that they're right.

Is there any hope, then, of debunking myths such as the birther myth that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, the creationism myth that a magical being created all species at once and there has been no evolution, or the anti-vaxxer myth
that vaccinations are chock full of harmful substances that cause
everything from mental retardation to autism to death and so should not
be given to our children? According to John Cook of the Global Change
Institute, University of Queensland, and Stephan Lewandowsky, School of
Psychology, University of Western Australia, there is a way to debunk
myths that shows some promise.

...an
effective debunking requires three major elements. First, the
refutation must focus on core facts rather than the myth to avoid the
misinformation becoming more familiar. Second, any mention of a myth
should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader that the
upcoming information is false. Finally, the refutation should include an
alternative explanation that accounts for important qualities in the
original misinformation. (The Debunking Handbook.)

Sounds
simple, eh? Anyway, I think there is little dispute among those of us
who frequently engage in public arguments that all we need to do is provide good
information and we will change the hearts and minds of those we argue against. On some issues, the
propaganda machinery is a Goliath that no army of independent Davids can
hope to take down. For example, Donald Prothero [How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused] reports that "the day
that the 2007 IPCC report was released (Feb. 2, 2007), the British newspaper The Guardian
reported that the conservative American Enterprise Institute (funded
largely by oil companies and conservative think tanks) had offered
$10,000 plus travel expenses to scientists who would write negatively
about the IPCC report." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
provides an abundance of solid information that journalists, government
officials, and citizens alike can look to for guidance in what to
believe about climate change. The propaganda machine of the
self-interested oil and coal companies and the conservative think tanks
and media outlets can easily outpace the flow and influence of
scientific data, however.

There's an old saying "if
you repeat something often enough it becomes true." Of course, repeating
something has no effect on the truth-value of any claim, but
familiarity with a claim does increase the chances of accepting it as
true. If propaganda machines are good at anything it is at getting the
same misinformation repeated again and again in various media outlets.
Combating the misinformation by providing accurate information may have
the undesired effect of strengthening the belief in the misinformation.
So, what's a fellow to do? Sounds like one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations.

The
fact is, though, that those of us who do battle with astrologers,
birthers, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, Holocaust deniers, evolution
deniers, climate change deniers, and the like aren't really hoping to
change the minds and hearts of those we confront. We're hoping that many
of those who read our arguments, attend our debates, hear our
presentations, or watch our videos are not fully committed to the
beliefs of those we challenge. The hope is that among the bystanders,
the audience, the viewers, and the readers there will be many who will
be influenced by the information and arguments we provide. The goal of
combating the tobacco companies' propaganda about smoking, for example,
was not to change the minds of tobacco executives, but to provide good
information that the general public, public health officials, and even
politicians, might consider in making decisions about smoking and
regulations governing the sale of tobacco products. The goal of
debunking the myth that the world will end in 2012 as predicted by the Maya
centuries ago is not to change the minds of those writing books or
posting on websites promoting this ridiculous idea. The goal is to
provide some counterpoints to the myth mongers that might alleviate some
of the unnecessary fear and anxiety they've created.

Are
we justified in believing that we can influence some people by
providing good arguments for accepting evolution, anthropogenic
climate change, science-based medicine, etc.? If we're not, then we may
as well abandon education altogether. People do change their minds about
many things and all of us have learned new things from time to time.
Still, it is worthwhile to know that our brains may not be the unbiased
truth-seeking missiles we imagine them to be. Knowing our own weaknesses
can help us in our attempts at persuading others. For example, studies
have shown that people are more receptive to ideas that conflict with
their worldviews when they're in a good mood. We might try priming a hostile audience with some affect bias
by getting them to think about how wonderful they are or about some
time in the past when they felt really great because they acted on a
value that was important to them (self-affirmation).
Once they're feeling good about themselves maybe they won't feel so
threatened by information that conflicts with their beliefs. This might
work, but I wouldn't count on it.

I'll finish this post with some comments on a recent exchange I had with a practitioner of reiki. She asserted that I was wrong to attribute the positive changes in health or well-being after receiving reiki to the placebo effect.
In defense of her claim, she provided two anecdotes about horses
recovering from disabilities after she treated them with reiki. She
claimed that "There is no placebo effect with animals." She also cited a
blinded study in support of the claim that reiki done by uncertified
people isn't as effective as reiki done by those with proper training
and certification.

Now, it is unlikely her arguments
will change my mind about reiki or any other form of energy medicine,
but it is also not the case that her counterpoints have made me dig in
deeper and that my belief that energy medicine is an illusion is now
stronger. It is also unlikely that I am going to get her to change her
mind about reiki or strengthen her belief in its efficacy. A few things
are worth noting, however. I would not have responded to her had she not
shown me the respect and civility she did by simply telling me I was
wrong and then giving me her reasons for saying so. And she would not
read my response if I did not respond to her civilly. While I probably
won't change her mind about reiki, I may provide her with enough
information about the placebo effect to get her to accept that when
animals respond to conditioning they are demonstrating one behavior that is often put under the heading of the placebo effect.
I may be able to expand her understanding of the placebo effect and,
despite her current beliefs, get her to change her mind about animals
being susceptible to what is sometimes referred to as a placebo effect.
In addition, some readers of our exchange may learn something about the
placebo effect that they weren't aware of. Anyway, this is her belief:

Animals have no preconceived ideas about reiki; no expectations about a treatment. There is no placebo effect with animals.

I
replied that there is a lot of confusion over the use of the expression
'the placebo effect' and that the expression has become a catchall term
for many things, including effects due to patient expectations. I
review the many different kinds of things that have been attributed to
placebos in my Skeptic's Dictionary entry on the placebo effect,
so I won't go over the whole thing here. Anyway, one thing that has
been attributed to a placebo effect is the effect of what is called 'conditioning.'
You remember Pavlov's dogs: he rang the bell when he fed them and he
conditioned them to salivate by just ringing the bell without presenting
them with food. Other studies have found that a ritual like getting stuck with a needle in a clinical setting can condition
both humans and animals to have physical responses, especially of the
opioid system. Humans and other animals can be conditioned to release
such chemical substances as endorphins, catecholamines, cortisol, and
adrenaline. It is not strictly true that animals have no expectations in
treatment. None of us do if it is the first time we are being treated,
but dogs, horses, and humans do expect effects from treatments. Shots of
morphine will make a dog salivate. Any shots, even of saline solution,
after that will make the dog salivate. Of course, the animals may not be
aware of their expectation, but conditioning studies show conclusively
that the bodies of animals do respond in expectation of results. Not all
cases that are attributed to the placebo effect are attributed to
expectation effects, however, and of those that are, the expectation
does not have to be something the patient--human or animal--is
consciously aware of. Anyway, I wouldn't argue that the attribution of
benefits to reiki treatments are all due to expectation, in either horse
or human.

I admitted to her that the horses who
recovered after reiki may have recovered due to reiki, but I also
offered other possible explanations and explained why I found them more
plausible than the reiki one. The first horse had been treated by a
veterinarian with antibiotics and anti-inflammatories. I suggested that
it was possible that this treatment kicked in after the vet had given up
and that the reiki was given credit because the horse showed
improvement soon after the reiki. The conventional treatment had been
going on for several weeks, and it seems more plausible that medicine we
know works much of the time kicked in here than that some subtle energy
was manipulated and somehow magically healed the horse. I also
suggested that there might be some unknown factor that could account
for, at least in part, the horse's recovery at the time it recovered.
Since there is no plausible mechanism by which reiki would work, it
would be imperative to look to blinded well-designed studies that
strongly suggest reiki works better than sham reiki. The site she cited,
however, doesn't really provide much more than optimistic claims and
positive assertions. It provides little scientific evidence. I referred
her to the work of Edzard Ernst (who is quoted on the page she cites), R. Barker Baussell, and the Cochrane Collaboration
to support my point that there haven't been the large-sample, high
quality, blinded studies on reiki that are needed to support the idea
that reiki might be a plausible healing method. There are studies, to be
sure, that have found positive things to say about reiki, but there has
not been a large, well-designed, controlled study, much less any
replication of such studies. Until such studies have been published in
reputable journals, I think I am right to remain skeptical.

I
offered an alternative explanation for the second horse she thinks she
healed with reiki by wondering whether the horse had been tested before
the reiki treatments. The horse hadn't been ridden in several years
because of fear of injuring it. She may have ridden the horse after the
reiki, but the surgery done several years earlier may have healed the
horse. Perhaps nobody had actually tested the horse's leg for fear of harming it. (She did not respond to my suggestion. Make of that what you will.) Anyway,
until there is some plausibility that there is a subtle energy that
affects health and can be manipulated by trained reiki
professionals, I will remain skeptical. To those who say I'm
closed-minded, I say: sometimes we don't change our minds when
confronted with evidence contrary to what we believe because the
evidence isn't very good.

8 comments:

The IPCC web site says:"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established by the United Nations Environment Programme...to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts" You say: "The propaganda machine of the self-interested oil and coal companies and the conservative think tanks and media outlets can easily outpace the flow and influence of scientific data." I think any credible scientist or organization can come to a rational evaluation of climate change with out the IPCC. I realize conservative think tanks, as Marx has explained, are nothing but sycophants of the capitalisic bourgeoisie. Thanks for your e-mail reply. NormanThis a obvious example of "back-fire"

It's almost IMPOSSIBLE to change someone's mind. I found this entry in the skeptic's dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html

The argument relies on strawman arguments, argument from authority, (implicit) argument from final consequences, confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable, and possibly others. The author is NOT open to discussion on the topic. Great example of backfire effect!

Anonymous, be more specific, please. You name several fallacies you say I commit but do not provide any evidence that they actually occur. I don't know what you mean by not being open to discussion. I've responded to many comments on that article and they are posted for you and others to read. The latest comments from a reader might interest you: they provide a fine example of the strawman argument. See: http://www.skepdic.com/comments/iqracecom.html

I like to start with the positives instead of just using this space to tear down the author. I think you are absolutely right that this is a real problem, and almost everything you say on your here and on you website about alt-med groups, New-Agers, extreme forms of environmentalism, etc. And the way you go about deconstructing these people based on logical fallacy is infinitely more helpful than the usual mere debunking. Why? Because it puts us 'skeptics' on the same level playing field as everyone else. Backfire effects, confirmation bias, all of these are ingrained into even the most ardent skeptics head. So the usual argument that Skepticism is a kind of arrogance does not follow.

But it bothers me to see my own view (Climate Skepticism or Denier-ism) clumped with the others. I think you are inadvertently engaging in a straw man fallacy, in that you are lumping all climate skeptics together and characterizing them based on part of the group. This happens all the time in politics, such as Republicans treating all Democrats as Socialists and Democrats treating all Republicans as Religious nuts. In fact climate skepticism probably has two threads, the religious oriented one that draws on the anti-science narrative of the right and this connects with the link you sent me (http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/second-oklahoma-bill-attacks-evolution-climate-change-007221) but there is another faction that is just as influential. We are the younger republicans/conservatives, we tend to be libertarian, pro-market, and pro science because we tend to be agnostic, atheist. Science is how we figure out things about the world!

It is important to distinguish us because unlike the other groups mentioned, we share the same values. The words we use, our goals, and our methods are the same. We differ in the end results. This means the possibility for communication with us despite our differences is much higher. We do science, support science and defend science just like you do. Is it possible we are wrong? Is it possible we have been duped? Certainly, but that does not make us anti-science, or even necessarily engaging in illogical fallicies. We even use the same terminology you use, such as our complaint that the case for global warming has become falling into infallible territory, or when we question the use of models in scientific analysis especially related to the issue of shoehorning data points.I would be glad to talk with you about the issue of global warming itself. But my question is why we cannot have a discussion as if one or the other party is not trying to destroy science? Being wrong about a scientific point is not the same as rejecting or subverting science to some other ideology, right?

In my Skeptic's Dictionary entry on climate change deniers I "acknowledge that scientists who produce scientific work that conflicts with the consensus of scientists on climate change are not necessarily contrarians. There is room in any complex scientific inquiry for a variety of opinions on how to interpret various sets of data." I also write "In one important respect, it doesn't matter what the scientific consensus on climate change is, since what matters is what policies the powerful governments of the world institute, and those governments tend to ignore science." Climate change skeptics or deniers must be pleased that Obama is in power since he's done nothing to lead the world in facing the potential problems climate change threatens.

You are probably right, in that the skeptics/consensus debate is primarily a political debate(which involves political and moral ideas), with the science more or less just one of the 'strains' each side points to. And we are probably winning, especially with as you point out, the fact the US as not imposed any climate controls (you have 2010 elections to thank for that!) and the growing dissatisfaction with the systems in place in Europe.

But the Science is still an important arena since both sides use it in their claims. I think the biggest problem the advocates of Climate Science face is in the fact that none of their models predicted the lack of warming over 2000-2010. Sure, 2000-2010 is still one of the warmest decades on record in modern times, but with their claims of positive feedback as C02 rises, one should expect at the very least continued temperature rise! Especially considering their calls for action are based on rapidly rising temperature due to said positive feedback mechanism, because after all C02 is a weak greenhouse gas. It has many people thinking this is an example of a backfire effect (but in their own words), especially as reports start cropping up claiming everything from increase storm activity to earthquakes (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/02/28/climate_change_triggers_earthquakes_volcanoes_274387.html) is caused by Climate Change. And for the more skeptically inclined it reeks of an falsifiable theory..

I don't understand the problem with "the fact that none of their models predicted the lack of warming over 2000-2010. Sure, 2000-2010 is still one of the warmest decades on record in modern times, but with their claims of positive feedback as C02 rises, one should expect at the very least continued temperature rise!" Why would you want models to predict "lack of warming" during the warmest decade on record?

I've added a link to Donald Prothero's article. I suggest you read it. It's at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature

It sounds like quibbling but its a big difference. For lack of eloquence, I'll have to explain in detail. Climate skeptics say that warming did not increase over the year, they are right. 'warmists' are right too that it is the warmest decade on record. The individual temperatures were not higher (as one would expect it we are dealing with exponential temperature increase) but the average of those temperatures over ten year was more than the previous decade. The reason the lack of demonstrate exponential growth is a big issue is because the positive feedback assumption of global warming models is what leads to the disastrous scenarios that demand political action. Global warming models can only be judged by their predictive abilities, and their failure to do so demonstrates the fact that the science needs more refined understanding of the present before we start getting in a huff about the future. I am going to read the article and respond on the most recent blog page, that way I don't have you chasing me over different articles to respond.